0 


^  LETT  EE. 


TO  A 


LAYMAN  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  ILLINOIS, 


ON  THE  LEGAL  RIGHT  OF  THE  GENERAL*  CONVENTION,  AND 
OFTHE  SEVERAL  STANDING  COMMITTEES,  TO  CONSIDER 
THE  PERSONAL  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  A  BISHOP- 
ELECT,  AND  TO  ASSENT  TO,  OR  REFUSE  TO 
ASSENT  TO,  HIS  CONSECRATION.  • 


BY 

E.E'V.  WILLZ^I^  lETJLLEE.,  L.  L. , 

V. 

% 

Rector  of  St.  Stephen’s  Churchy  Philadelphia. 


U'CALLA  &  8TAVELY,  PRS.,  287-9  QOCK  ST.,  PHIUA 


1 


/  €,  Jfl.  N.  Branch 


A  LETTER 

TO  A 

LAYMAN  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  ILLINOIS, 


Dear  Sir, — 

Your  letter  of  the  12th  inst.,  reached  me  a  day  or 
two  ago.  In  this  letter  you  inform  me  that  “  Among 
other  arguments  used,”  in  the  late  Special  Convention' 
of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois,  “to  effect  the  election  of  Dr. 
De  Koven  was  this — That  his  speech  in  the  General 
Convention  satisfied  you.” 

In  reply,  I  would  simply  say,  that  I  was  not  satisfied 
with  the  statement  concerning  Eucharistic  Doctrine 
made  by  Dr.  De  Koven  in  the  late  General  Conven¬ 
tion.  It  was  not  a  statement  which  I  could  accept. 
But,  as  I  then  understood  it — for  I  have  not  seen  the 
stenographic  report  of  the  debates — it  was  a  consider¬ 
able  modification  of  his  views  as  expressed  in  the 
General  Convention  of  1871.  This  fact,  or  supposed 
fact,  I  was  glad  to  recognize,  and  it  gave  me  great 
pleasure  publicly  to  call  attention  to  it,  and  to  express 
my  own  gratification  concerning  it. 

In  regard  to  the  general  subject-matter  of  your 
letter,  permit  me  to  make  the  following  observations. 

The  position  assumed  by  the  majority,  or  alleged 
majority,  of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois 
in  regard  to  the  case  of  Dr.  Seymour,  and  evidently 


2 


with  the  purpose  of  affecting,  if  possible,  the  case  of 
Dr.  De  Koven,  is,  in  my  judgment,  wholly  untenable. 
Their  interpretation  of  the  Church’s  Law,  and  their 
denial,  under  that  interpretation,  of  the  right  of  the 
General  Convention,  and  “  during  its  recess,”  of  the 
Standing  Committees  of  the  several  Dioceses,  to  con¬ 
sider  the  personal  qualifications  of  a  Bishop-elect,  and, 
should  the  result  of  such  consideration  be  unsatisfac¬ 
tory,  to  refuse  their  consent  to  his  Consecration,  are, 
to  say  the  least,  new  doctrines  in  the  Church.  Our 
most  learned  Canonists  seem  never  to  have  heard  of 
them. 

It  will  not  be  necessary,  in  this  discussion,  to  inquire 
what  was  the  rule  or  practice  of  the  Early  Church  in 
the  election  and  confirmation  of  Bishops  ;  to  enter 
into  the  controversy  touching  the  Ka\  oi  in  Acts  xv.  23; 
or  to  determine  the  precise  weight  and  authority 
allowed  to  the  voice  of  the  Laity  in  Episcopal  elections. 
Without  doubt,  the  final  confirmation  rested  with  the 
Provincial  Synod  composed  of  the  Archbishop  and  the 
Bishops  of  his  Province.  But  it  seems  equally  certain 
that  the  power  of  the  people  in  determining  the  choice 
of  a  Bishop  was  very  great ;  so  great  indeed  that  it 
sometimes  ran  out  into  violence  and  open  tumult. 
They  had  a  “  proper  suffrage  ”  in  the  election  of  the 
Bishop,  and,  whatever  might  be  the  power  or  authority 
of  the  Provincial  Synod,  no  Bishop  could  be  obtruded 
upon  them  without  their  consent.  Scholars  differ,  it  is 
true,  concerning  the  precise  extent  and  limitations  of 
this  authority,  and  as  to  the  mode  in  which,  in  different 
times  and  places,  it  was  exercised  ;  but  the  broad  fact 
seems  to  be  well  settled,  “  that  ” — as  Bingham,  with  his 
usual  judiciousness,  has  stated  it — “  there  was  no  one 


3 


1 


► 


a 


universal,  unalterable  rule  observed  in  all  times  and 
places  about  this  matter,  but  the  practice  varied  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  different  exigences  and  circumstances  of  the 
Church.”  Evidently  then,  the  election  or  confirmation 
of  a  Bishop, — reserving  always  the  final  decision  to  the 
Episcopal  College  of  the  Province  —  are  not  such 
matters  of  fundamental  principle  as  to  make  the  rules 
or  customs  of  the  Early  Church,  whatever  these  may 
be  determined  to  have  been,  binding  upon  all  Churches 
in  all  ages.  Rather  they  are  to  be  reckoned  among 
those  things  which  it  is  entirely  within  the  proper 
power  of  each  particular  Church  to  arrange  and 
determine  for  itself. 

Now  there  are  two  views  which  may  be  taken  of  the 
General  Convention.  We  may  regard  it  as  the  highest 
Council  of  a  National  Church,  or  we  may  regard  it  as 
a  Provincial  Synod — the  whole  Church  in  the  United 
States  being  looked  upon  as  forming  one  Province. 
This  last,  if  I  mistake  not,  is  the  view  taken  by  Mr. 
Murray  Hoffman.  In  either  case,  if  the  Church  has 
allowed  to  the  Laity  a  representation  in  this  National 
Council  or  Provincial  Synod,  and,  as  a  consequence,  a 
voice  in  determining  concerning  the  fitness  or  non¬ 
fitness  for  the  Episcopate  of  a  Bishop-elect,  it  has  done 
only  what,  in  its  just  liberty,  it  had  a  right  to  do,  and 
has  not  been  guilty  of  any  breach  of  fundamental 
Ecclesiastical  principle  or  Law.  The  Bishops  have  still 
the  final  determination  in  every  case. 

The  question,  therefore,  for  us,  here,  and  to-day,  is — 
What  is  the  Law  of  “The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States,”  touching  this  matter  ? 

I  am  unable  to  see  how  any  person  can  read 
Canon  13,  Sections  II.,  III.,  without  reaching  the  follow¬ 
ing  conclusions : — 


> 


35704 


4 


Firs"^.  That  there  are  two  sources  of  authority 
whose  assent  to  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop-elect  are 
necessary  to  that  end: — ist,  the  General  Convention, 
if  it  be  in  session ;  or,  2d,  “  during  the  recess  of  the 
General  Convention,”  less  the  six  months  immediately 
preceding  its  triennial  assembly,  “  the  major  number 
of  the  Standing  Committees  of  the  several  Dioceses.” 

Second.  That  of  these  two  sources  of  authority,  the 
General  Convention  stands  first  in  the  legal  intention, 
and  legislative  system  of  the  Church ;  its  action  is,  so 
to'  speak,  the  normal  legislative  action  of  the  Church ; 
and  the  authority  of  the  Standing  Committees,  in  this 
matter  of  consenting  or  refusing  to  consent,  to  the 
Consecration  of  a  Bishop-elect,  only  comes  into  exist¬ 
ence  “  if,  during  the  recess,  of  the  General  Convention, 
the  Church  in  any  Diocese  should  be  desirous  of  the 
Consecration  of  a  Bishop-elect.”  The  authority  there-- 
fore  of  the  Standing  Committees  in  the  premises  is^  in 
fact,  the  authority  of  the  General  Convention, — an  au¬ 
thority  committed  to  them  “  during  the  recess  of  the 
General  Convention,”  less  the  six  months  prior  .to 
the  triennial  meeting  of  that  body.  And  the  powers 
of  the  Standing  Committees  in  consenting,  or  refus¬ 
ing  to  consent,  to  the  Consecration  of  a  Bishop- 
elect,  are  consequently  no  less  full  and  complete  than 
those  of  ihe  General  Convention  itself,  which,  in  this 
matter,  they  represent* 


*  The  Second  Canon  of  1799 — the  first  legislation  of  the  Church  on  this 
subject — required  the  production  of  testimonials  from  the  Convention 
electing,  and  also  “from  the  General  Convention,  or  a  Cotmnitteeofthat 
body,  to  be  appointed  to  act  m  their  recess."  The  Canon  of  1808,  required 
the  latter  testimonial  to  be  “  from  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Depu¬ 
ties  in  General  Convention;’’  to  which  also  the  testimonial  from  the 
Diocesan  Convention  is  directed  to  be  sent.  “The  cause  of  this  differ- 


5 


But  it  is  said  of  both  the  General  Convention  and 
the  Standing  Committees,  that,  under  the  Canons 
referred  to  above,  they  have  no  right  to  enter 
upon  any  consideration  of  the  personal  qualifications 
of  a  Bishop-elect.  •Their  business  is  simply  to  testify 
that  the  testimonials  of  the  Bishop  elect,  sent  to  them 
from  the  electing  Diocese,  are  regular,  and  that,  refu¬ 
sing  to  be  informed,  they  are  “  not  informed  that  he  is 
justly  liable  to  evil  report,  either  for  error  in  religion, 
or  for  viciousness  of  life;”  and  further,  that  “they  do 
not  know  or  believe  ”  {meanwhile  7'efusing  all  testi¬ 
mony  on  the  p)ints^  “  there  is  any  impediment,  on 
account  of  which  he  ought  not  to  be  consecrated  to 
that  Holy  Office ;  but  that  he  hath,  as  they  believe,  led 
his  life  for  three  years,  last  past,  piously,  soberly,  and 
honestly.”  The  business,  in  one  word,  of  the  General 
Convention,  or  of  the  Standing  Committees,  is,  enact¬ 
ing  a  solemn  farce,  simply  to  endorse  the  action  of  the 
electing  Diocese,  and  to  ratify  and  confirm  its  choice. 
It  is  on  this  ground  that  the  action  of  the  late  General 
Convention  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Seymour  has  been  so 
bitterly  assailed,  and  the  Convention  set  forth  for  the 
condemnation  of  the  Church. 

The  action  of  the  General  Convention  is  denounced 
as  “  Illegal  ”  and  “  Unprecedented.” 

It  is  illegal. — If  it  is  illegal,  it  is  so  under  an  inter- 


ence,”  says  Dr.  Hawks,  “  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  Canons  were  now 
in  existence,  establishing  Standing  Cotmnittees  in  the  several  Dioceses, 
and  requiring,  during  the  recess  of  the  General  Convention,  testi¬ 
monials  from  them  in  favor  of  a  Bishop  elect ;  hence  it  was  no  longer 
necessary  to  continue  a  Committee  of  the  General  Convention,  for  the 
purpose  of  granting  such  testimonials.”  Constitution  a7id  Ca7ions,  p. 
go.  The  Standing  Committees  therefore  fill,  in  fact,  the  place  of  the 
former  “  Committee  of  the  General  Convention.” 


6 


pretation  of  the  Law,  which,  as  I  have  said,  is  certainly 
new  in  the  Church.  None  of  our  Canonists,  some  of 
them  men  of  wide  reputation  as  such,  seem  ever  to  have 
heard  of  it.  Judge  Hoffman  does  not  seem  to  be  aware 
of  this  interpretation.  Dr.  Francis4/inton  is  manifestly 
ignorant  of  it.  Dr.  Hawks,  one  of  the  most  eminent 
of  our  writers  on  Canon  Law,  speaking  of  the  things 
which  the  Dioceses  “surrendered”  when  they  adopted 
the  Constitution  of  the  American  Church,  notes  as  one 
of  these  ; — “  The  right  of  having  the  Bishop  whom  they 
might  elect  consecrated  without  the  consent  of  the  Church  at 
large!'  Speaking  of  the  Canon  under  consideration,  in 
which  are  embodied  the  testimonials  of  the  Bishop-elect 
to  be  signed  by  the  Lower  House  of  the  General  Con¬ 
vention,  he  remarks  ; — “  It  is  obvious  that  this  Canon  is 
more  precise  in  its  phraseology  as  well  as  more  strict 
in  its  demands  than  any  of  its  predecessors ;  its  interpre¬ 
tation,  however^  would  seem  to  be  free  f^om  diffciUty. 
Up  to  that  date  of  writing  therefore,  he — and  so  the 
same  thing  must  be  supposed  of  the  other  students  of 
our  Church  Law — had  never  heard  of  those  wonderful 
clouds  of  dust  about  “informed”  and  “impediments,” 
with  which  some  of  our  new  school  of  ecclesiastical  law¬ 
yers  are,  for  the  sake  of  a  present  issue,  endeavouring  to 
blind  the  eyes  of  those  who  know  no  better,  or  who 
are  willing  to  be  thus  blinded.  Commenting  upon  the 
testimonial  laid  before  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies,  Dr.  Hawks  remarks  : — 

“  This  Certificate  in  the  practice  of  the  House,  is  always  referred,  with 
the  documents  on  the  fact  of  election,  to  the  Committee  on  Consecrations. 
The  object  of  the  reference  must  be  two-fold,  to  see,  first,  that  the  certifi¬ 
cate  is  in  the  form  of  words  prescribed ;  and  secondly,  that  it  is  signed 
by  a  constitutional  majority  of  the  Convention  making  the  election  ;  and 
it  will  prevent  confusion  to  bear  in  mind  that  this  testimonial  has  no 


7 


reference  to  the  fact  of  election,  or  to  anything  else,  save  the  moral  and 
religious  qualifications  of  the  Bishop-elect ;  it  proves  nothing  else,  and  is 
not  even  conclusive  on  that  point ;  for  if  the  House  should,  m  ajiy  mode. 
become  satisfied  that  the  individual  named  in  the  testimonial  is  unworthy, 
it  will  not  recommend  him  to  the  Bishops  for  consecration.” — [Ecclesi¬ 
astical  Contributions,  Constitutioji  and  Cations,  p.  96.] 

Further  on,  having  mentioned  the  documents  to  be 
laid  before  the  House  of  Bishops,  he  says : — 

“  Without  these  things  he  (the  Bishop-elect)  cannot  lawfully  be  conse¬ 
crated  under  this  Canon  ;  with  them  all,  his  consecration  does  not  7ieces- 
sarily  follow  ;  it  never  has  happened  in  our  history,  it  probably  never  will 
happen,  that  one  who  is  known  to  be  unworthy  will  be  permitted 
all  these  orde'als,  and  come  before  the  House  of  Bishops  with  all  the 
Canonical  requisites  for  consecration  complete  ;  but  should  such  ever  be 
the  case,  or  should  in  any  case  subsequent  discoveries  bring  to  light  dis¬ 
qualifications  unknown  until  every  ordeal  but  the  last  was  past,  the 
House  of  Bishops  would  refuse  to  consecrate,  and  no  powxr  on  earth 
could  force  them  to  act  otherwise.  It  is  a  matter  between  God  and 
their  consciences,  and  there  it  must  be  left.  Each  House  in  the  Gene¬ 
ral  Convention  has  its  rights,  and  as  the  Bishops  ca?t7iot  co7isecrate  a7iy 
07ie  against  the  asse7it  of  the  House  of  Clerical  a7id  Lay  Deputies  ;  so 
neither  can  they  be  forced  by  the  House  to  consecrate  any  one  against 
their  own  assent.  Thus  careful  has  the  Church  been  to  subject  every 
one  who  enters  into  the  highest  office  of  its  ministry  to  a  thrice  repeated 
scrutmy ;  first,  by  the  Convention  which  elects  him ;  secondly,  by  the 
House  of  Clencal  and  Lay  Deputies ;  and  thirdly,  by  the  House  o 
Bishops.  A  bad  man  may,  indeed,  get  in,  notwithstanding  all  these 
guards,  but  the  Church,  in  her  legislation,  has  at  least  done  what  she 
could  to  prevent  it.” — {Ib.  pp.  97,  98.] 

But  the  action  of  the  late  General  Convention  v/as 
not  only  “Illegal;”  it  was  “unprecedented.” — If  there 
were  any  doubt  as  to  the  plain  meaning  of  the  words 
of  the  Canon,  that  meaning  has  been  settled  by  the 
decision  of  cases  under  it.  We  all  know  the  value 
and  efficacy  of  precedents  in  determining  the  right  in¬ 
terpretation  of  Laws.  Now  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies  has,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  refused, 
on  consideration  of  the  personal  qualifications  of  a 
Bishop-elect,  to  give  its  assent  to  his  consecration.  The 


8 


latest  case,  I  believe,  prior  to  that  of  Dr.  Seymour,  was 
the  case  of  the  Rev.  J.  B.  Britton,  Assistant  Bishop-elect 
of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois,  to  whose  consecration  the 
General  Convention  of  1847  refused  to  give  its  consent. 
The  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  thought  that 
most  excellent  and  highly-esteemed  clergyman  to  be 
lacking  in  certain  qualities  which  it  deemed  it  import¬ 
ant  that  a  Bishop  should  possess,  and  accordingly  it  re¬ 
fused  to  sign  his  testimonials.  A  second  precedent  we 
have  in  the  celebrated  case  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks, 
Bishop-elect  of  the  Diocese  of  Mississippi,  in  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Convention  of  1844.  There  were  no  technical  im¬ 
pediments  in  the  way.  Certain  charges,  based  upon 
events  and  transactions  which  had  occurred  many  years 
before,  were  preferred  against  Dr.  Hawks,  and  he 
pleaded  his  own  case.  The  Bishop-elect,  as  I  need 
scarcely  say,  was  a  man  of  legal  education  and  expe¬ 
rience ;  had  sat  on  the  Bench  in  North  Carolina;  and 
was,  besides,  one  of  the  most  learned  and  able  Can¬ 
onists  which  the  American  Church  has  produced.  Is 
it  not  strange  that  it  never  occurred  to  him  to  quash 
the  whole  proceedings,  by  simply  denying  the  legal 
competency  of  the  General  Convention  to  consider  the 
case,  and  refusing  to  plead  to  the  charges?  He  was  a 
Clergyman  in  good  standing  in  the  Diocese  of  Missis¬ 
sippi  ;  elected,  I  believe,  unanimously  by  the  Diocese 
of  Mississippi  to  be  its  Bishop,  which  Diocese  he  also 
represented  in  the  Convention  ;  with  no  question  as  to 
the  strict  legality  of  his  election,  or  as  to  the  regu¬ 
larity  of  the  necessary  testimonials;  and  yet  the  House 
of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  proceeds  to  “try”  him;* 


*  Our  new  Canonists  had  one  predecessor  in  this  General  Convention 
in  the  person  of  the  Rev.  F.  W.  Boyd,  a  delegate  from  Mississippi,  who 


9 


\ 


goes  back  of  the  action  of  the  Diocese  of  Mississippi, 
and  having  gone  into  a  thorough  discussion  of  the 
charges  against  him,  and  not  being  fully  satisfied  of 
his  entire  fitness  for  the  Episcopate,  virtually  refused 
to  give  its  assent  to  his  consecration.* *  On  the  other 

“  did  not  suppose  that  the  House  was  a  competent  body  to  try  a  Presby¬ 
ter  or  Minister  of  the  Church.”  Of  course,  there  were  plenty  of  mem¬ 
bers,  Clergymen  and  Laymen,  to  remind  Mr.  Boyd  that  the  investiga¬ 
tion  was  no  “  trial  ”  in  the  legal  or  technical  meaning  of  the  word,  but 
only  such  an  investigation,  although  upon  a  larger  and  more  conspicuous 
stage,  as  every  man  at  all  in  public  life,  whether  Clergyman  or  Layman, 
has  to  submit  to  again  and  again.  Mr.  Boyd,  however,  seems  to  have 
been  quite  alone  in  this  position.  His  words  called  forth  no  response, 
and  produced  no  effect. 

*  The  following  was  the  disposal  made  of  the  case  of  Rev.  Dr. 
Hawks.  Two  resolutions  were  passed. 

First.  On  motion  it  was 

"'Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  the  integrity  of  Rev. 
Dr.  Hawks  has  been  sufficiently  proved  by  his  reply  to  the  charges 
brought  against  him  in  the  memorials  presented  to  this  House.” 

Second.  On  motion  it  was 

”  Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  all  proceedings  re¬ 
specting  the  Consecration  of  the  Rev.  Francis  L.  Hawks,  D.D.,  ought 
to  be  suspended  until  a  future  Convention  of  the  State  of  Mississippi 
shall  declare  their  sense  of  the  subject.  And  that  all  the  documents 
relating  thereto  be  sent  back  to  the  Diocese  of  Mississippi  for  their 
consideration.”  ‘ 

It  may  be  said  that  this  action  militates  against  the  position  assumed 
above.  A  moment’s  thought,  however,  will,  I  think,  show  that  it  does 
not.  In  the  first  place,  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  entered 
upon  a  full  consideration  of  the  charges  made  against  Dr.  Hawks, 
discussing  the  whole  questio7i  on  its  merits.  There  is  no  slightest  indica¬ 
tion  that  the  Convention  of  1844  thought  that,  in  so  doing,  it  was  infring¬ 
ing  upon  the  rights  or  prerogatives  of  the  Diocese  of  Mississippi,  or  doing 
anything  outside  of  its  own  legal  and  proper  functions.  If  the  House  had 
no  legal  right  to  pursue  the  course  that  it  did,  its  action  was  a  mere 
waste  of  time,  and,  to  say  the  least,  an  impertinence.  But,  evidently,  no 
such  idea  entered  the  minds  of  its  members.  They  unquestionably 
thought  that  they  had  a  right  to  act  in  the  premises,  and  they  acted  ac¬ 
cordingly. 

Again,  in  referring  back  tlie  whole  matter,  with  the  documents,  to  the 

J 


lO 


hand,  Dr.  Hawks  unhesitatingly  admits  the  legal  right 
of  the  General  Convention  to  do  all  this  ;  never,  indeed, 
seems  to  have  dreamed  of  calling  it  in  question  ;  and 
when  the  decision  is  against  him,  both  he  and  the 
Diocese  of  Mississippi  quietly  and  loyally  accept  the 
result.^ 

It  is  possible  that,  under  the  new  quibble  upon  the 
word  “  informed  ”  in  the  testimonials  required  from 
the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  it  may  be  ob¬ 
jected  that  the  General  Convention  of  1844  was  “in¬ 
formed  ”  in  the  matter  of  Dr.  Hawks,  because  formal 
charges  were  made  against  him  by  a  clergyman  of 
the  Diocese  of  New  York.  Had  there  been  no  for- 


Diocese  of  Mississippi,  the  House  in  no  way  concedes  that  that  Diocese 
had  a  right  to  expect  this,  much  less  to  demand  it,  or  that  it  had  not 
itself  the  right  then  and  there  finally  to  dispose  of  the  case.  The  simple 
fact,  as  appears  plainly  from  the  debates,  was,  that  it  was  considered,  on 
all  sides,  the  best  way  to  gain  time,  in  a  difficult  case,  for  all  parties  to 
reach  a  calm  and  judicious  decision. 

Judge  Chambers,  of  Maryland,  in  his  argument  in  favour  of  this  course, 
referred  to  the  case  of  Rev.  Mr.  Ogden,  in  the  General  Convention  of 
1799,  a  justifying  precedent.  What  was  this  precedent?  The  Gen¬ 
eral  Convention  of  1799  sent  back  the  case  of  Rev.  Mr.  Ogden  to  the 
Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  of  which  he  was  a  Presbyter, 
on  the  ground  of  an  alleged  insufficient  number  of  Presbyters  in  the 
Diocese  making  the  election.  But,  says  Bishop  White,  “  There  was  a 
more  important  reason  at  the  bottom  of  the  objection  made.  The  truth 
is,  that  the  gentleman  elected  was  considered  by  his  brethren  generally, 
as  being  more  attached  to  the  doctrines  and  the  practices  obtaining 
in  some  other  Churches,  than  to  those  of  his  own.” — Memoirs,  p.  178. 

The  subsequent  action  of  the  General  Convention  of  1801,  proves  that 
there  was  no  idea,  in  sending  back  the  case  of  Mr.  Ogden  to  the  Diocese 
of  New  Jersey,  that  the  General  Convention  had  not  the  full  right  finally 
to  dispose  of  it.  That  Convention  did  so  dispose  of  it.  The  precedent 
referred  to  by  Judge  Chambers  thus  explains  the  action  of  the  Conven¬ 
tion  of  1844.  See  following  Note. 

*  It  will  not  be  necessary  to  consider  at  any  length,  the  case  of  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Uzal  Ogden,  Bishop-elect  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  in  the 


mal  charges  made,  it  would  not  have  been  within 
the  competency  of  the  House  to  discuss  his  personal 
qualifications  in  the  presence  of  the  regular  testimonials 
from  the  Diocese  of  Mississippi.  But  the  word  “  in¬ 
formed  ”  occurs  also  in  the  testunony  from  the  Dioce¬ 
san  Convention,  and  there  seems  to  be  no  question, 
judging  from  the  practice  in  certain  quarters,  that  that 
Convention  can  discuss  to  any  extent,  the  qualifica¬ 
tions  of  the  person  or  persons  nominated  for  its  choice. 
Besides,  the  question  may  well  be  asked, — Would  the 
General  Convention  of  1844  have  been  less  “in¬ 
formed  ”  if  the  clergyman  making  the  charges  had 
been  a  member  of  that  body,  and  had  risen  in  his  place, 
and  viva  voce  urged  his  objections  to  the  consecration 
of  Dr.  Hawks.  On  the  other  hand,  would  that  clergy¬ 
man  have  been  justified  in  conscience  if,  having  knowl- 

General  Conventions  of  1799  1801.  The  record  in  the  Journal  of  the 

latter  Convention  runs  as  follows  : — 

“  The  proceedings  of  the  State  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  New  Jersey,  respecting  the  election  of  Dr.  Ogden,  as  Bishop 
of  that  State,  were  accordingly  read  and  fully  C07isidered ;  and  the  ques¬ 
tion  upon  signing  the  requisite  testimonial  being  taken  by  States,  it  was 
negatived.” 

Speaking  of  the  General  Convention  of  1799,  Bishop  White  remarks; 

“  In  the  Convention,  considerable  animosity  was  excited  in  the  House 
of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  on  the  subject  of  the  election  of  a  reverend 
gentleman  to  the  Episcopacy  of  New  Jersey.  Agreeably  to  the  distinc¬ 
tion  taken  by  the  author,  of  recording  personal  matters,  then  only  when 
necessary  to  illustrate  Ecclesiastical  effects,  and  when  something  appears 
on  the  Journal  which  may  be  thus  elucidated ;  it  may  be  proper  to  note 
in  this  place,  that  whatever  ground  was  taken  by  the  said  House  in  the 
strict  construction  of  the  Canon,  fixing  the  number  of  Clerical  incumb¬ 
ents  in  a  State  in  which  a  Bishop  might  be  chosen  ;  there  was  a  more 
important  reason  at  the  bottom  of  the  objection  made.  The  truth  is, 
that  the  gentleman  elected  was  considered  by  his  brethren  generally,  as 
being  more  attached  to  the  doctrines  and  the  practices  obtaining  in  some 
other  Churches,  than  to  those  of  his  own.  What  rendered  the  manage- 


edge  of  the  charges,  which,  however  wrongly,  he  be¬ 
lieved  to  be  true,  he  had  sat  still  and  been  silent, 
because  his  legal  function  as  a  member  of  the  Conve^ition 
was  simply  to  ratify  the  choice  of  the  Diocese  of  Mis¬ 
sissippi,  and  not  to  discuss  the  personal  qualifications 
of  the  Bishop-elect  ?  Or,  again,  would  the  General  Con¬ 
vention  itself  have  been  justified  before  God  and  man 
if  it  had  refused  to  listen  to,  or  consider  those  charges, 
because  the  mod^  of  presenting  them  did  not  fall  within 
some  arbitrary  and  technical  interpretation  of  the  word 
“informed?”  But  in  1844  they  were  ignorant  of  all 
these  nice  points. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  the  charges  against  Dr. 
Hawks  were  not  known,  and  perhaps  could  not  have 
been  known,  by  the  Diocese  electing  him  as  its 
Bishop.  They  came  for  the  first  time,  and,  it  may 


ment  of  the  case  the  more  difficult,  was  his  being  brought  forward  by 
some  gentlemen  who  had  always  professed  the  strongest  disappro¬ 
bation  of  the  least  deviation  from  the  institutions  of  the  Church.” 
Memoirs,  p.  178. 

In  his  note  on  the  General  Convention  of  1801,  Bishop  White  further 
observes  :  ”  In  this  Convention,  the  question  of  recommending  to  the 

Episcopacy  the  Clergyman  elected  to  it,  as  related  under  the  head  of 
the  last  preceding  Convention,  came  to  a  crisis.  The  Church  of  New 
Jersey  persevered  in  the  election  of  him  ;  and  there  was  now  710  lo7iger 
reaso7i  to  hesitate,  for  waiit  of  a  sujficie7it  7iu7}iber  of  incu7nbe7its : 
because  the  questiofi  of  fact  had  been  referred  by  the  last  General 
Convention,  to  the  Convention  of  the  particular  State  which  had  decided 
in  the  affirmative.  These  things  were  reported  to  the  House  of  Cleri¬ 
cal  and  Lay  Deputies  ;  and  the  result  was  a  direct  ref ti sal  to  reco7}i7}iend. 
The  incident,  although  given  in  the  Journal,  should  not  be  noticed  in 
these  remarks,  were  it  not  to  record,  that  the  extre77ie  dissatisfaction  co7i~ 
ceived  by  a  few  ge7itle7}ien ,  was  preve7ited  fro77i  endmg  hi  the  i7ico7ivefii- 
ences  of  which  there  was  entertamed  an  appre7ie7ision,  by  some  con¬ 
troversies  of  a  parochial  description.  Until  these  took  place,  the  few 
gentlej}ie7i  referred  to  had  adopted  so  zealously  the  cause  of  the  rejected 
Clergy7nan,  that  they  conte7}ipiated  an  applicatio7t  to  the  Episcopal 
Church  m  Scotland.  This  would  certainly  have  failed  :  but  the  project 


be,  could  only  thus  come  before  the  House  of  Cleri¬ 
cal  and  Lay  Deputies ;  and  therefore  that  House 
was  justified,  in  the  way  of  a  necessary  exception^  in  con¬ 
sidering  and  acting  upon  them.  The  reply  to  this 
seems  to  me  to  be  very  evident.  In  the  first  place, 
this  position  rests  upon  an  assumption  that  cannot  be 
proved.  In  the  second  place,  our  rigid  interpreters  of 
the  Canon  must  remember  that  the  Canon  makes  no 
allowance  for  any  exceptions  whatever.  If  it  plainly 
and  positively  as  is  alleged,  denies  to  the  Lower  House 
of  the  General  Convention  the  right  to  consider  the 
personal  qualifications  of  a  Bishop-elect  in  one  case,  it 
does  so  in  all  cases.  And,  lastly,  this  mode  of  inter¬ 
pretating  and  applying  Laws  would  throw  endless  con¬ 
fusion  into  all  legal  proceedings.  I  think  I  am  right  in 
saying,  that  it  is  allowed  to  no  court  of  any  kind  what¬ 
ever,  to  determine  for  itself  cases  of  exception  in  the 
application  of  written  Laws. 

But  it  is  said  again,  I  believe,  that  moral  disqualifica- 


was  communicated  by  one  of  the  gentlemen  to  the  author.  The  Bishop- 
elect,  a  few  years  afterwards  joined  the  Presbyterian  Church,  probably 
in  consequence  of  the  parochial  controversies  referred  to ;  which  had 
also  arrested  the  proceedings  in  his  favor  in  regard  to  the  Episcopacy.” 
Memoirs,  p.  187. 

So  do  historical  instances  repeat  themselves.  Here  is  a  case  in  1799- 
1841,  wherein  a  Diocese,  defying  the  authority  of  the  General  Conven¬ 
tion,  endeavours  to  force  upon  the  Church,  by  a  second  election,  a  Bishop 
of  erroneous  doctrinal  views,  and  in  order  to  carry  its  point,  threatens 
independency  and  the  inauguration  of  a  schism.  In  1875,  seventy-five 
years  after,  almost  the  same  spectacle  is  presented  to  our  eyes. 

It  may  be  well  to  remember  two  things  in  connection  with  the 
above  quotations  ; — First,  the  fact  that  Bishop  White  was  one  of  the 
founders  of  the  American  Church,  and  took  part  in  the  Conventions 
which  gradually  framed  the  Canon  under  consideration  ;  it  is  therefore 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  knew  the  meaning  and  intention  of  it : — 
and  Second,  The  Maxim  of  the  Common  Law — “  Contcniporanea 
expositio  est  optima  et  for tissima  in  lege." 


14 


tions  stand  on  a  different  ground  from  those  which 
arise  from  error  in  doctrine.  The  General  Convention 
may  be  justified  in  looking  into  the  former ;  it  has  no 
right  to  consider  the  latter.  It  seems  strange  that  this 
point  should  be  raised  by  members  of  a  school  of 
Theology  which  insists,  and  rightly,  with  such  empha¬ 
sis,  upon  the  vital  importance  of  sound  doctrine.  The 
answer,  however,  is — That  the  Canon  knows  no  such 
difference.  The  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies 
is  to  testify, — that  “A.  B.  is  not,  so  far  as  we  are  in¬ 
formed,  justly  liable  to  evil  report  either  for  error  in 
religion^  or  for  viciousness  of  life.” 

But  it  is  urged  again,  that  the  consideration  and  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  qualifications  of  a  Bishop-elect  by  the 
Lower  House  of  the  General  Convention  puts,  in  fact, 
a  Clergyman  upon  “trial”  before  a  court  composed 
partly  of  Laymen,  while  yet  it  is  the  common  and 
recognized  right  of  every  man  to  be  tried  only  by  his 
peers.  Of  course,  we  can  call  this  action  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Convention,  or  of  the  Standing  Committees,  a 
“  trial,”  or  give  to  it  any  other  offensive  or  ad  captan- 
dum  vulgus  name  that  we  please.  But,  after  all,  what 
does  it  really  amount  to  ?  When  the  qualifications  of 
the  nominees  in  a  Diocesan  election  for  Bishop  are 
discussed — and  surely,  these  nominees  are  sometimes 
very  thoroughly  discussed,  body,  soul  and  spirit? — are 
not  these  inoffensive  and  helpless  gentlemen  brought 
to  “trial”  in  the  same  sense,  and  in  the  same  way,  before 
a  court  composed  partly  of  Laymen,  no  more  and  no 
less?  Are  not  the  nominees  for  vacant  Parishes 
“  tried  ”  in  the  same  sense,  and  in  the  same  way  ? 
And  how  are  we  going  to  avoid  such  a  “trial,”  unless, 
as  is  asserted  by  our  new  Canonists,  the  Church  at 


15 


large  has  no  right  to  ask  any  questions  concerning  the 
qualifications  of  men  who,  in  the  case  of  Bishops-elect, 
are  to  affect  her  welfare,  and  influence  her  destiny,  no 
less  than  the  welfare  and  destiny  of  the  particular 
Dioceses  over  which  they  are  called  to  preside  ? 

The  truth  is,  that  just  here  there  is  a  singular  forget¬ 
fulness  of  a  very  important  fact  and  principle.  A 
Bishop  has  Jurisdiction  in  a  particular  Diocese,  but  he 
is  a  Bishop  of  the  whole  Church ;  and  it  is  therefore  a 
matter  of  the  very  highest  interest  and  importance  to 
the  whole  Church  to  be  thoroughly  well  certified  before 
hand,  as  to  the  character  and  quality  of  the  man  who  is 
to  be  admitted  to  this  high  and  most  influential  office. 
The  whole  Church  has  a  right  to  be  so  satisfied. 
It  seems  strange  that  it  should  be  necessary  to  remind 
“  Catholics  ”  of  those  celebrated  dicta  of  St.  Cyprian  : — 
“  am  etsi  pastor es  multi  sumus,  unuri  tamevi  gregem 
pascimus,  et  oves  universas^  quas  Chrisius  sanguine  suo 
et passione  qucesivit,  colligere  et  f over e  debemus!' — \Cyp- 
rian,  Ep,  68,  ad  Stephl]  In  Bingham’s  translation ; — 
“  For  though  we  are  many  pastors,  yet  we  have  but 
one  flock  to  feed,  and  every  one  is  obliged  to  take  care 
of  all  the  sheep  of  Christ,  which  He  purchased  with 
H  is  blood;”  and  again; — “  Episcopat2ts  unus  est,  cujus  a 
singulis  in  solidum  pars  tenehirl' — “  There  is  but  one 
Bishopric  in  the  Church,  and  every  Bishop  has  an  undi¬ 
vided  portion  in  it.” 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  a  Diocese  elect¬ 
ing  a  Bishop  is  the  only  party  concerned  in  the  matter. 
A  single  illustration  may  suffice  to  show  how  deeply 
the  interests  of  the  whole  Church  are,  or  may  be,  in¬ 
volved.  It  is  perhaps  not  probable,  but  no  reader  of 
Ecclesiastical  history  will  say  that  it  is  impossible,  that 


a  Diocese  may  elect,  and  elect  with  strict  legality  in 
every  respect,  an  Arian  to  be  its  Bishop.  Will  the 
gentlemen  who  are  so  anxious  to  close  the  mouths  of 
the  General  Convention  and  the  Standing  Committees, 
contend  that,  in  such  a  case,  those  bodies  would  have 
no  legal  right  to  refuse  consent  to  the  Consecration  of 
such  a  Bishop-elect,  but  that  they  would  be  bound  by 
the  Law  of  the  Church  simply  to  acquiesce  in,  and  con¬ 
firm  such  a  choice?  Yet  to  this  result  they  are  com¬ 
mitted  by  the  position  which  they  have  chosen  to 
occupy. 

There  are  several  other  points  to  which  I  might  call 
your  attention,  but  these  will,  I  think,  suffice  to  show, 
how  wholly  untenable  is  the  ground  taken  by  the 
majority,  or  alleged  majority,  of  the  late  Convention  of 
the  Diocese  of  Illinois. 

Yours  respectfully, 

William  Rudder. 


Philadelphia,  Feb.  15,  1875. 


